Gameplay wise it's mostly Vancouver I think, yeah, but we have studios all over working on it.
I'm a producer, mainly responsible for making sure we get all the official kits into the game and have them properly approved by the clubs/leagues/manufacturers. It's not that glamorous!

So much hype when this came on the screen. Like the OP, I didn't want to let myself believe it until the title shot came up at the end, I had a ridiculous number of hours on FS2000.
I hope they've made some big changes to the flight model though, I could never go back to FSX after trying X-Plane.

Yeah, I just arrived back over to the UK and got a bit lucky getting this job so soon. I've been away in Canada for the last couple of years working at Ubisoft. Looking forward to seeing the reveal of the project I was on with them at their conference tomorrow
I'm not involved with Volta directly but that's certainly a mode I'd be interested in too, Pro Clubs was always something I enjoyed with the guys on here last gen.

I just started working on this. As soon as I found out about the plans for Volta I had instant flashbacks to the indoor mode on FIFA '98, I absolutely loved it and I think this could be a neat twist to put a bit of life back into the series.

For me, there are two key advantages of this system over prior streaming services.
Firstly, (and this is one that many people won't actually care about) multiplayer becomes a much fairer environment. They only touched on it briefly during the conference, but hacking/cheating is practically wiped out overnight and every online game is played on a virtual LAN. Yes, there will still be the latency of the video stream, but if you're happy with how that turns out, it means every action you take is immediately registered with other players, no more checking your ping.
Secondly, this is a fixed hardware system, not a hundreds of GTX 2080s crammed into a datacentre to power thousands of virtual machines. That might not sound noteworthy, but It means developers can optimise the hell out of it in the same way they do for home consoles.

I've been involved with a project coming to this platform for a while now and it does have the potential to be quite a gamechanger if other publishers get on board. I'm not expecting our game to be announced with it, but that's a decision a bit above my pay grade! Looking forward to the show anyway.

Play the game? No, not really. I did spend far too much time a couple of years back perfecting my laps on the racing mode back when that and the arena/dogfighting module were the only functional parts of the game though. That was actually quite fun. I'm not bothered about space combat because I'm useless, and being a semi-serious CS:GO player I fully expect the FPS aspect to be complete crap as well so if anything comes from that it's a bonus. In regards to the video content not being representative of the game I'm not entirely sure what you mean, it seems quite clear to me which parts are in development/subject-to-change and which are already playable on the test server. I mean, anyone can literally go on there and look for themselves, there's no smoke and mirrors. Perhaps a 'casual' backer might be confused by what they see talked about as if it's already available to play, I couldn't really say - are there any particular examples?
I don't think I can really comment definitively on that, it's just conjecture. I'm well aware of that kind of phenomenon in gambling culture, convincing yourself to make just one more bet to win back everything you've lost and so on... But who sensibly thinks they can keep throwing money at a multi-multi-million dollar project and finish funding it themselves because they don't want to waste the $200 they're already in for?
Regarding just releasing what was promised - I believe once they began receiving crazy money from backers they ran a poll to ask everyone whether they should still deliver what they had originally planned, or re-scale the project to something much more ambitious. You can guess which way the vote went. I can also understand why people are getting antsy, the average punter sees something like Assassin's Creed coming out every year and thinks that it only takes 12 months to put together a game of that scale. I'd bet Rockstar have averaged 800+ people working on RDR2 over the past 5 years, CIG had to build up a studio from zero for the first couple of years of 'development' before they could really begin to get the project rolling.
And I have every reason to hold a grudge against CIG, I applied for a development job there and didn't get it

About 20 quid off eBay for an unwanted AMD GPU promo code nearly 4 years ago, which came with the most expensive Mustang class ship. I since spent 5 or 10 dollars in-game to upgrade it to an Origin 315p. I was always a solo Astero guy on Eve so exploration is what I'm most interested in.
I completely agree, I even have first hand experience with someone who previously worked at CiG and they weren't complimentary of their planning and organisation either.
The thing is, people are (presumably) willing to continue funding it because they still like where it's going and what it's trying to do. If that's what they want to spend their money on then I don't see why anyone has a problem with that. There are far, far worse abusers of player trust and psychological weaknesses (loot boxes, etc.) in this industry. I am of the opinion that Chris is honestly trying to make the very best possible game he can for the players and not the bank - even if his ability to plan such an undertaking is arguably lacking. I don't believe there's any deceit involved at all.